DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
Receipt is acknowledged of applicant’s amendment filed June 2, 2026. Claims 16-29, 31 and 32 are pending and an action on the merits is as follows.
Applicant's arguments with respect to claims have been considered and are addressed below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 16-18, 23, 24, 28 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Winter et al. (US 5,587,567) in view of Takeuchi (US 7,207,422 B2), further in view of Richmond et al. (US 2017/0327344 A1).
Claims 16 and 23: Winter discloses a method for operating an elevator having an operating panel on a car wall and an operating panel on a car wall for an elevator, the operating panel having a plurality of buttons (push buttons) (column 2 lines 40-45) including a first button and at least one second button arranged adjacent to the first button, as is known in the art. Said plurality of buttons are capacitive buttons and a control unit evaluates a change in capacitance of each of the buttons to detect an actuation of each of the buttons (column 3 lines 7-12) caused by pressing a button with a finger so as to produce a call signal (column 2 lines 45-46). This reference fails to disclose that in response to an actuation of the first button being detected by the control unit, the control unit to check whether an actuation duration of the first button exceeds a predetermined first time period. This reference further fails to disclose that in response to an actuation the at least one second button, the control unit to control the actuation of the first button on a basis of a change in capacitance of the actuated at least one second button such that the control unit cancels the actuation of the first button in response to the actuation of the at least one second button continuing during a predetermined check period.
However Takeuchi teaches a method for operating an elevator and an operating panel for an elevator, where a control unit (processing operation section 8) is shown in FIG. 2 to include a first timer section (13) and time measurement and comparison section (16). In response to a first touch being detected by the control unit (column 3 lines 21-23), the control unit checks whether a touch duration exceeds a predetermined first time period (500 milliseconds) (column 5 lines 3-9).
Given the teachings of Takeuchi, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method and operating panel disclosed in Winter with in response to an actuation of the first button being detected by the control unit, the control unit to check whether an actuation duration of the first button exceeds a predetermined first time period. Doing so would allow a determination to be made “that the user is a visually handicapped person” as taught in Takeuchi (column 5 lines 12-15), and “provide voice guidance related to the touch detected … [and] registering, after the voice guidance has been given, a call corresponding to the detected touch position into the elevator control unit when the time of the touch is longer than the time limit” (column 2 lines 32-33, 39-42). These references fail to disclose that in response to an actuation the at least one second button, the control unit to control the actuation of the first button on a basis of a change in capacitance of the actuated at least one second button such that the control unit cancels the actuation of the first button in response to the actuation of the at least one second button continuing during a predetermined check period.
However Richmond et al. teaches a method for operating an elevator having an operating panel and an operating panel for an elevator, where in response to an actuation of at least one second button corresponding to at least one floor, a control unit controls actuation of a first button corresponding to an initial call request on a basis of the actuated at least one second button such that the control unit cancels the actuation of the first button in response to the actuation of the at least one second button continuing during a predetermined check period (short time period corresponding to an unacceptable rate) (pages 6-7 paragraphs [0057]-[0058]).
Given the teachings of Richmond et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method and operating panel disclosed in Winter et al. as modified by Takeuchi et al. with providing in response to an actuation the at least one second button, the control unit to control the actuation of the first button on a basis of a change in capacitance of the actuated at least one second button such that the control unit cancels the actuation of the first button in response to the actuation of the at least one second button continuing during a predetermined check period. Doing so would allow a “mischievous act [to] be determined” based on “whether a passenger inputs call requests at an acceptable rate” as taught in Richmond et al. (page 6 paragraph [0057]) and “execute one or more counteractions … to counteract the mischievous act” (page 6 paragraph [0058]).
Claims 17 and 24: Winter et al. modified by Takeuchi et al. and Richmond et al. discloses a method and operating panel where a capacitance of each actuated button is evaluated and actuation of the first button is canceled on the basis of a change in capacitance of at least one second button in the predetermined check period, as stated above. The control unit is shown in Richmond et al. to cancel the actuation of the first button in response to at least two second buttons being actuated and a number of the actuated second buttons exceeding a predetermined limit number, e.g., 8 buttons corresponding to 8 floors (pages 7-8 paragraphs [0057]-[0058]).
Claim 18: Winter et al. modified by Takeuchi et al. and Richmond et al. discloses a method where actuation of at least one second button is continued during a predetermined check period after the first button is actuated, as stated above. Richmond et al. teaches additional buttons actuated after the first button result in the first button being canceled and replaced by said additional buttons (page 7 paragraph [0058]). Therefore in response to another button of the plurality of buttons being actuated at a same time as the first button and the at least one second button, said another button is released, thereby causing a capacitance of the another button to change in the predetermined check period, the another button would be evaluated by the control unit as another first button, canceled, and replaced with the at least one second actuated button, similar to the first button, as shown in Richmond et al. (page 7 paragraph [0058]).
Claim 28: Winter et al. modified by Takeuchi et al. and Richmond et al. discloses an operating panel operated as a car operation panel in an elevator car, as stated above, including an elevator comprising said operating panel, as shown in Winter et al. (column 1 lines 41-43).
Claim 29: Winter et al. modified by Takeuchi et al. and Richmond et al. discloses a method as stated above, where Winter et al. includes a computer program product stored on a non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising computer-readable instructions that, in response to an execution of the instructions by a control device of an operating panel of an elevator, instruct the control device to carry out or control the method steps, as is recognized in the art.
Claims 19-21, 25, 26, 31 and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Winter et al. (US 5,587,567) modified by Takeuchi (US 7,207,422 B2) and Richmond et al. (US 2017/0327344 A1) as applied to claim 16 above, further in view of Simcik et al. (US 2018/0099838 A1).
Claims 19 and 25: Winter et al. modified by Takeuchi et al. and Richmond et al. discloses a method and operating panel as stated above, but fails to disclose the control unit to cancel the actuation of the first button in response to an actuation duration of the first button exceeding a predetermined second time period.
However Simcik et al. teaches a method for operating an elevator having an operating panel and an operating panel for an elevator, where a control unit cancels actuation of a first button in response to an actuation duration of the first button exceeds a predetermined time period (brief period of time) (page 3 paragraph [0036]).
Given the teachings of Simcik et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method and operating panel disclosed in Winter et al. as modified by Takeuchi et al. and Richmond et al. with providing the control unit to cancel the actuation of the first button in response to an actuation duration of the first button exceeding a predetermined second time period. It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Doing so would allow “the passenger [opportunity] to cancel the selection” as taught in Simcik et al. (page 3 paragraph [0036]) any time after the first button has already been actuated.
Claims 20 and 26: Winter et al. modified by Takeuchi et al., Richmond et al. and Simcik et al. discloses a method and operating panel as stated above, where an alarm signal from an alarm indicator is taught in Simcik et al. to be generated causing the first button to de-illuminate in response to cancellation of the actuation of the first button by the control unit after the predetermined second time period has elapsed (page 3 paragraph [0036]).
Claim 21: Winter et al. modified by Takeuchi et al., Richmond et al. and Simcik et al. discloses a method as stated above, where the alarm signal is taught in Simcik et al. to be used for canceling the specific, previously selected, floor destination altogether (page 3 paragraph [0036]), and therefore is forwarded to at least a main controller as is recognized in the art.
Claim 31: Winter discloses a method for operating an elevator having an operating panel on a car wall, the operating panel having a plurality of buttons (push buttons) (column 2 lines 40-45) including a first button and a second button arranged adjacent to the first button, as is known in the art. Said plurality of buttons are capacitive buttons and a control unit evaluates a change in capacitance of each of the buttons to detect an actuation of each of the buttons (column 3 lines 7-12). An actuation of a first button of the plurality of buttons is detected with the control unit (column 3 lines 7-12). This reference fails to disclose the control unit to check whether an actuation duration of the first button exceeds a predetermined first time period wherein the first button remains activated. This reference further fails to disclose the control unit to check whether a capacitance of an identified second button changes during a second predetermined time period; the control unit to cancel the actuation of the first button in response to the actuation of the second button continuing during a predetermined check period, in response to no change in capacitance of the second button during the predetermined second time period, the control unit to check whether the actuation duration of the first button exceeds the second predetermined time period; the actuation of the first button to be cancelled by the control unit in response to the actuation duration of the first button exceeding the second predetermined time period to prevent a sustained activation of the first button; and after the actuation of the first button is canceled, the control unit to generate an alarm signal from an alarm indicator to notify at least one of a passenger and service personnel of the cancellation.
However Takeuchi teaches a method for operating an elevator, where a control unit (processing operation section 8) is shown in FIG. 2 to include a first timer section (13) and time measurement and comparison section (16). In response to a first touch being detected by the control unit (column 3 lines 21-23), the control unit checks whether a touch duration exceeds a predetermined first time period (500 milliseconds) while the first button remains activated (column 5 lines 3-9).
Given the teachings of Takeuchi, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method and operating panel disclosed in Winter with providing the control unit to check whether an actuation duration of the first button exceeds a predetermined first time period wherein the first button remains activated. Doing so would allow a determination to be made “that the user is a visually handicapped person” as taught in Takeuchi (column 5 lines 12-15), and “provide voice guidance related to the touch detected … [and] registering, after the voice guidance has been given, a call corresponding to the detected touch position into the elevator control unit when the time of the touch is longer than the time limit” (column 2 lines 32-33, 39-42). These references fail to disclose the control unit to check whether a capacitance of an identified second button changes during a second predetermined time period; the control unit to cancel the actuation of the first button in response to the actuation of the second button continuing during a predetermined check period. These references further fail to disclose that in response to no change in capacitance of the second button during the predetermined second time period, the control unit to check whether the actuation duration of the first button exceeds the second predetermined time period; the actuation of the first button to be cancelled by the control unit in response to the actuation duration of the first button exceeding the second predetermined time period to prevent a sustained activation of the first button; and after the actuation of the first button is canceled, the control unit to generate an alarm signal from an alarm indicator to notify at least one of a passenger and service personnel of the cancellation.
However Richmond et al. teaches a method for operating an elevator having an operating panel, where a control unit checks whether a state of an identified second button changes during a predetermined time period after a first button has been actuated, and the control unit to cancel the actuation of the first button in response to the actuation of the second button continuing during a predetermined check period (short time period) (pages 6-7 paragraphs [0057]-[0058]).
Given the teachings of Richmond et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method and operating panel disclosed in Winter et al. as modified by Takeuchi et al. with providing the control unit to check whether a capacitance of an identified second button changes during a second predetermined time period and the control unit to cancel the actuation of the first button in response to the actuation of the second button continuing during a predetermined check period. Doing so would allow a “mischievous act [to] be determined” based on “whether a passenger inputs call requests at an acceptable rate” as taught in Richmond et al. (page 6 paragraph [0057]) and “execute one or more counteractions … to counteract the mischievous act” (page 6 paragraph [0058]). These references fail to disclose that in response to no change in capacitance of the second button during the predetermined second time period, the control unit to check whether the actuation duration of the first button exceeds the second predetermined time period; the actuation of the first button to be cancelled by the control unit in response to the actuation duration of the first button exceeding the second predetermined time period to prevent a sustained activation of the first button; and after the actuation of the first button is canceled, the control unit to generate an alarm signal from an alarm indicator to notify at least one of a passenger and service personnel of the cancellation.
However Simcik et al. teaches a method for operating an elevator having an operating panel, where a control unit checks whether an actuation duration of a first button exceeds a predetermined time period (brief time period) and cancels the actuation of the first button in response to an actuation duration of the first button exceeding the predetermined time period to prevent a sustained activation of the first button (page 3 paragraph [0036]). After the actuation of the first button is canceled, an alarm signal from an alarm indicator is generated by the control unit causing the first button to de-illuminate, thereby notifying a passenger of the cancellation (page 3 paragraph [0036]).
Given the teachings of Simcik et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method and operating panel disclosed in Winter et al. as modified by Takeuchi et al. and Richmond et al. that in response to no change of state, and therefore no change in capacitance of the second button during the predetermined second time period, the control unit to check whether the actuation duration of the first button exceeds the second predetermined time period; the actuation of the first button to be cancelled by the control unit in response to the actuation duration of the first button exceeding the second predetermined time period to prevent a sustained activation of the first button; and after the actuation of the first button is canceled, the control unit to generate an alarm signal from an alarm indicator to notify at least one of a passenger and service personnel of the cancellation. It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Doing so would allow “the passenger [opportunity] to cancel the selection” as taught in Simcik et al. (page 3 paragraph [0036]) any time after the first button has already been actuated.
Claim 32: Winter et al. modified by Takeuchi et al., Richmond et al. and Simcik et al. discloses a method where a capacitance of the second button in the second time period is checked, as stated above. In response to the capacitance of the second button changing in the second time period, the control unit is shown in Richmond et al. to check whether any other second buttons changed capacitance in the second time period, and in response to a number of the second buttons that changed capacitance in the second time period exceeds exceeding a predetermined limit number, e.g., 8 buttons corresponding to 8 floors, the control unit cancels the activation of the first button, (pages 7-8 paragraphs [0057]-[0058]).
Claims 22 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Winter et al. (US 5,587,567) modified by Takeuchi (US 7,207,422 B2) and Richmond et al. (US 2017/0327344 A1) as applied to claim 16 above, further in view of Sun et al. (US 11,112,912 B2).
Claims 22 and 27: Winter et al. modified by Takeuchi et al., Richmond et al. and Simcik et al. discloses a method and operating panel as stated above, but fails to disclose the plurality of buttons to be calibrated by the control unit to predetermined target capacitance values in response to none of the buttons being actuated.
However Sun et al. teaches a method and an operating panel having a plurality of buttons being capacitive buttons and a control unit that evaluates a change in capacitance of the buttons to detect an actuation of each of the buttons (column 1 lines 31-37), where the plurality of buttons is calibrated by a control unit to predetermined target capacitance values (compensation values) in response to none of the buttons being actuated (column 7 lines 34-40).
Given the teachings of Sun et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method and operating panel disclosed in Winter et al. as modified by Takeuchi et al., Richmond et al. and Simcik et al. with providing the plurality of buttons to be calibrated by the control unit to predetermined target capacitance values in response to none of the buttons being actuated. Doing so would “achieve a better touch effect” and therefore “can provide a better touch experience” as taught in Sun et al. (column 9 lines 29-33).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed June 2, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant states on page 7 of the response that the claimed “limitation includes two features: (1) the actuation of the first button is controlled on the basis of a change in capacitance of an adjacent second button, and (2) cancellation of the first button is triggered by the continued actuation of the adjacent second button during a check period”. However these “features” are described in the claims as being interrelated and not separate features. The claims cite applicant’s first “feature” and further clarifies said first “feature” by stating “such that the control unit cancels the actuation of the first button in response to the actuation of the at least one second button continues during a predetermined check period”. Without the ability to control the first button on the basis of a change in capacitance of the second button, actuation of the first button would not be able to be canceled in response to actuation of the second button. Richmond et al. teaches that actuation of a first button related to an initial call request is canceled in response to actuation of a second button related to a second call request during a time period corresponding to an unacceptable rate (page 7 paragraph [0058]). In order for actuation of the first button to be cancelled in response to actuation of the second in time period, actuation of the first button would have to be controlled on the basis of actuation of the second button. Therefore Richmond et al. properly teaches applicant’s limitation as required by the claims.
Applicant further states that “Richmond does not disclose controlling actuation of a first button on a basis of a change in capacitance of an adjacent button”, “Richmond’s 3-D sensor technology is wholly unsuitable for monitoring capacitance changes of two adjacent buttons on a single operating panel, as recited in Applicant’s Claims 16 and 31” and “at no point does Richmond disclose or suggest monitoring a change in capacitance of a second button adjacent to a first button to determine whether to cancel the actuation of the fist button. Richmond’s system does not operate on a basis of capacitance changes”. However the primary reference to Winter et al. describes detecting a change in capacitance of buttons on an operating panel (column 3 lines 7-12) such that pressing a button with a finger produces a call signal (column 2 lines 45-46). Richmond et al. was relied on to teach actuation of a first button to be controlled on a basis of actuation of a second button (page 7 paragraph [0058]). One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Further, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). Therefore the teachings of Richmond et al. combined with the disclosure of Winter et al. properly renders obvious applicant’s limitation as required by the claims.
On page 8, applicant states that “there is no explicit suggestion or motivation in the cited references to combine the cited references in the manner proposed by the Examiner”. However it has been established that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). Further, the obviousness analysis cannot be confined by . . . overemphasis on the importance of published articles and the explicit content of issued patents... In many fields it may be that there is little discussion of obvious techniques or combinations, and it often may be the case that market demand, rather than scientific literature, will drive design trends.KSR, 550 U.S. at 419, 82 USPQ2d at 1396. As shown in the previous and present Office Actions, separate motivation was provided for combining the teachings of Takeuchi et al. and Richmond et al. with the disclosure of Winter et al. Therefore combining the teachings of Takeuchi et al. and Richmond et al. with the disclosure of Winter et al. properly renders obvious applicant’s invention as described by the independent claims.
Applicant also states that “the three references address entirely different technical problems using fundamentally different technologies”. However Winter et al. describes a protected push button panel for an elevator, which is insensitive to external disturbing factors (column 1 lines 41-55), Takeuchi et al. teaches that operation of a touch panel display included in an elevator call registration system registers an elevator call based on a timing of a user’s touch (column 2 lines 20-39), and Richmond et al. teaches that a determination is made as to whether a new elevator call input is made, and conditionally cancels a previous elevator call request based on said new elevator call input (page 6 paragraph [0055]-[0056]), where the new elevator call input is made using a call request device (page 1 paragraph [0003]). Therefore the applied references all teach improvements in operation and functionality of elevator operating panels. The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). Therefore combining the teachings of Takeuchi et al. and Richmond et al. with the disclosure of Winter et al. properly renders obvious applicant’s invention as described by the independent claims.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER UHLIR whose telephone number is (571)270-3091. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-4.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Anita Coupe can be reached at 571-270-3614. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Christopher Uhlir/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3619 August 21, 2026
Prosecution Insights